IT'S TIME FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE

mysteryman wrote:

Will anyone please show me where in the Constitution or in the US Code anywhere that says the govt is required to provide health care to everyone.

I have looked and I cant find it anywhere.

Show me where in the Constitution or US code or anywhere it says that the government shouldn't provide health care to everyone.

This is a Democracy. If most Americans think it is a good idea, it will (and should) become reality.

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

mysteryman wrote:
Will anyone please show me where in the Constitution or in the US Code anywhere that says the govt is required to provide health care to everyone.

I have looked and I cant find it anywhere.

Show me where in the Constitution or US code or anywhere it says that the government shouldn't provide health care to everyone.

This is a Democracy. If most Americans think it is a good idea, it will (and should) become reality.

So your saying if the American people don't want it and vote against it, then that is fine with you?

I bet you don't feel that way about illegal aliens or same sex marriage?

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

MM, most of the things that the government does are not required by the constitution. Is it your view that this makes those things illegal? Gee, the government must immediately give up ownership of federal highways, stop providing farm subsidies, cease disaster assistance, etc.

Yes,the govt should immediately stop ALL subsidies,to farms and businesses.
Let them sink or swim on their own merits.

As for federal highways,have you actually driven on most of them?
If the shape they are in now is because of federal ownership,then I say let the private sector do the job.

In my view,anything the federal govt does that is not mandated by the Constitution is illegal and unconstitutional.
The Constitution is quite explicit about what the govt may or may not do.

0 Replies

Baldimo wrote:

ebrown_p wrote:
mysteryman wrote:
Will anyone please show me where in the Constitution or in the US Code anywhere that says the govt is required to provide health care to everyone.

I have looked and I cant find it anywhere.

Show me where in the Constitution or US code or anywhere it says that the government shouldn't provide health care to everyone.

This is a Democracy. If most Americans think it is a good idea, it will (and should) become reality.

So your saying if the American people don't want it and vote against it, then that is fine with you?

I bet you don't feel that way about illegal aliens or same sex marriage?

What I said is "This is a Democracy. If most Americans think it is a good idea, it will (and should) become reality."

I feel exactly the same way for a path to citizenship for immigrants and same sex marriage and ending the war in Iraq.

0 Replies

MM, are you saying that the feds will have to disband the FBI, CIA, IRS, FTC, NSA, NAASA, etc., because the constitution doesn't require them?

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

Baldimo wrote:
ebrown_p wrote:
mysteryman wrote:
Will anyone please show me where in the Constitution or in the US Code anywhere that says the govt is required to provide health care to everyone.

I have looked and I cant find it anywhere.

Show me where in the Constitution or US code or anywhere it says that the government shouldn't provide health care to everyone.

This is a Democracy. If most Americans think it is a good idea, it will (and should) become reality.

So your saying if the American people don't want it and vote against it, then that is fine with you?

I bet you don't feel that way about illegal aliens or same sex marriage?

What I said is "This is a Democracy. If most Americans think it is a good idea, it will (and should) become reality."

I feel exactly the same way for a path to citizenship for immigrants and same sex marriage and ending the war in Iraq.

Its a Democracy so if the American vote for or against something then it must be a majority thing right? Doesn't that counter act that the Constitution was made to protect the minority? I don't see how it can be one in the same. Either you support the notion that the Constitution protects the right of minority groups or you beleive the majority have the say. I don't see how it could be both.

If a majority of American people want illegals thrown out on their ears don't want to have Universal Health Care and are against gay marriage then you support all of that because American voted on it.

0 Replies

MM my 24 year old mentally retarded son with non tractable seizure disorders who would die without his medication and who I CAN"T carry on my insurance because they're allowed to refuse to cover him even if I pay the premium.... he can't work and he's on medicaid... he should be required to sink or swim right? God Bless America and Americans like you.

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

As you are probably aware, MA now has a system, and it is very popular. Moreover, it is not costing the taxpayer any additional amount. Money formerly spent to provide health benefits for the poor, et al., is now used to buy insurance for those people. Mitt Romney deserves credit for this, and he will be campaigning on this initiative.

As a resident of MA I can tell you that the popularity of the MA program is questionable at best. To say that it doesn't cost the taxpayer any additional amount is also misleading. First of all, the program just recently went into effect so no one really knows what the true cost of the program is. Secondly, saying that there is no additional cost to the taxpayer is also misleading. The funds that were in the State's uninsured healthcare pool aren't adequate to cover the cost of this program and much of that cost was previously eaten by the hospitals. The difference is currently being met with taxpayer dollars. To fully implement the plan will require a change in the current Federal Medicare laws which may or may not happen. If it doesn't happen then the remaining cost will come from general tax revenue in the state.

Lastly, the plan is not a "full coverage" plan. It is a stripped down plan and has deductibles and co-pays which takes it out of the true universial care realm.

There is a lot of hope that tihs plan works but it is far from proven and the costs to run it are a guess at best. In a few years we'll have a much better picture.

0 Replies

Fishin, thanks for the additional info on Mitt's plan. I was curious about how the plan was working, and I see that it is too early to really judge it.

Should you learn more about the plan, please let us know.

From what I have heard in the media, Bush's plan is DOA.

0 Replies

Any thoughts on the president's proposal to make all health insurance premiums tax deductible? I've always said that needed to be done. The only thing I disagree with is the proposal to levy additional taxes on those who have high dollar coverage. Why punish someone for having good insurance?

http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/16513010.htm

0 Replies

Baldimo wrote:

Advocate wrote:
I think that those on visas are not residents, but are visitors. I was referring to green-card people.

IF YOUR NOT A CITIZEN THEN NO INSURANCE ID CARD!!!!!!!

As it happens, I do hold a Green Card. Once I work in the USA, I will pay payroll taxes like everybody else. So why shouldn't I receive Social Security and Medicare? And assuming universal would basically be Medicare for all, why shouldn't I receive that as well, given that I would also pay the premium?

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

In my view,anything the federal govt does that is not mandated by the Constitution is illegal and unconstitutional.
The Constitution is quite explicit about what the govt may or may not do.

Suppose Medicare for all was introduced at the state level, not the federal level. Would you be okay with that?

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

Show me where in the Constitution or US code or anywhere it says that the government shouldn't provide health care to everyone.

That's not a valid defense against Mysteryman's question. The Tenth Amendment, states that "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. " So if the constitution neither grants nor withholds the power to provide health care enumerated in the constitution, the federal government don't have it. Mysteryman's question was the right one to ask.

(For a hint at the answer, see the Commerce Clause in your constitution, as super-stretched by the Supreme Court in Wickard v. Filburn)

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

mysteryman wrote:
In my view,anything the federal govt does that is not mandated by the Constitution is illegal and unconstitutional.
The Constitution is quite explicit about what the govt may or may not do.

Suppose Medicare for all was introduced at the state level, not the federal level. Would you be okay with that?

If a State Constitution gives the state that power,then I would have no problem with it.

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

Any thoughts on the president's proposal to make all health insurance premiums tax deductible? I've always said that needed to be done. http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/16513010.htm

It's a step in the right direction, but I'm not enthusiastic about it for several reasons:

1) I understand there is a significant stratum in society that is too poor to afford healthcare, but not poor enough to get medicaid. A tax deduction won't help them much, because they barely pay any taxes in the first place. I prefer a lump sum tax credit.

2) A tax deduction does nothing for those who can't get insurance because they have pre-existing conditions. (Think of Bear's epileptic cub.)

So, as I said -- a step in the right direction, but nothing to be enthusiastic about.

Free Duck wrote:

The only thing I disagree with is the proposal to levy additional taxes on those who have high dollar coverage. Why punish someone for having good insurance?

Because there is a school of thought among conservative economists that says the major problem with exploding health care costs is the free-rider problem: people consume too much of it because others pay most of your treatment. I'm not sure to which extent the evidence bears out this thinking, and even if I accept it I don't see how it applies to programs where you pay more to get more. But I think the extra taxes originate from this theory, filtered through several layers of think tank idology and back office politics.

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

If a State Constitution gives the state that power,then I would have no problem with it.

Most state constitutions do, because unlike the federal constitution, they do not specify governments of enumerated powers. The Kentucky constitution, for example, says that the government has no absolute power over people's lives, libery, and property (section 2). All government powers are constrained by the Bill of Rights (section 26). But your state constitution contains no language like the federal constitution's 10th amendment. Universal healthcare from the Tennessee government would be constitutionally kosher even under a strict construction of your constitution. (That's one reason I like universal health care on the state level.)

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

It's a step in the right direction, but I'm not enthusiastic about it for several reasons:

1) I understand there is a significant stratum in society that is too poor to afford healthcare, but not poor enough to get medicaid. A tax deduction won't help them much, because they barely pay any taxes in the first place. I prefer a lump sum tax credit.

2) A tax deduction does nothing for those who can't get insurance because they have pre-existing conditions. (Think of Bear's epileptic cub.)

So, as I said -- a step in the right direction, but nothing to be enthusiastic about.

Yep, this was mentioned on NPR this morning. I don't know what level of income one has to have to qualify for medicaid so I can't speak to it. But ideally, anyone who couldn't afford their own medical care would be eligible for medicaid, as well as anyone who couldn't get insurance due to their pre-existing conditions (like my mother). I'm sure this would create other problems that would need to be worked out. Or alternatively, a tax credit for healthcare (which I think is what you're saying) for those below a certain income level.

I think they should just say, all health care costs, including insurance premiums, are tax deductible. And go from there.

0 Replies

Paul Krugman's column addressed its silliness yesterday (or the day before). Basically, it's providing an incentive for low-income people to buy insurance -- but it's not that they don't want to (which is how incentives usually work), it's that they can't afford it. And it's not at all clear that the incentive will make insurance more affordable.

It also penalizes people who managed to negotiate a good insurance plan with their employer.

It sounds like something that is nice enough in principle but the execution leaves a lot to be desired.

0 Replies

I certainly don't think it will solve the health care problem. But a lot of middle class people might buy health insurance if it were not with after tax dollars. One of the things that makes it affordable for those of us with employer provided health care is that it comes out of our paychecks pre-tax. If your premium is close to $500 a month (which ours has been) then it may be that you can afford to buy it with pre-tax dollars but not with after tax dollars. I've always wondered why premiums are tax deductible if your employer deducts it from your paycheck but not if you write a check for it yourself. If that gets corrected then I'll be happy about it. But I agree that this isn't likely to solve the wider problem.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

mysteryman wrote:
If a State Constitution gives the state that power,then I would have no problem with it.

Most state constitutions do, because unlike the federal constitution, they do not specify governments of enumerated powers. The Kentucky constitution, for example, says that the government has no absolute power over people's lives, libery, and property (section 2). All government powers are constrained by the Bill of Rights (section 26). But your state constitution contains no language like the federal constitution's 10th amendment. Universal healthcare from the Tennessee government would be constitutionally kosher even under a strict construction of your constitution. (That's one reason I like universal health care on the state level.)

I understand that most state constitutions give the STATE that power or authority.
I have no problem with that.

BUT,have you ever seen a FEDERALLY run program that was either on or under budget,and that worked the way the govt says its going to?

The federal govt does NOT have the authority to or the finances to provide health care to EVERY citizen.

That is my point entirely.

0 Replies

IT'S TIME FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know